TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY & FALSE DILEMMA FALLACY

TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER An informal fallacy, also known as the

Clustering Illusion. It is committed when one draws a conclusion

and “paints over it” with supporting arguments or evidences ex post facto to make it look like there is a pattern; when there is no specific hypothesis prior to gathering data or when hypothesis is formed after data is gathered and analyzed.

Also occurs when the speaker ignores the differences (that conflict with their argument), while focuses on the similarities (that do not conflict with their argument). This can lead to an inaccurate conclusion.

Much similar to the gambler’s fallacy, it can give meaning to randomness.

It is fallacious because:1. Findings may well be the result of

chance, in which case it was not caused by anything; or

2. Even if the cluster is not the result of chance, there are other possible reasons for the clustering, other than the cause chosen.

You can avoid this fallacy by forming hypothesis prior to gathering data, and by not ignoring differences in data.

Example:

“Nostradamus correctly predicted nearly 500 years ago the death of President John F. Kennedy, the French Revolution, the reign of Hitler, and the 9-11 Attacks. He must be a true prophet.”

This statement is fallacious because it frames Nostradamus to be a prophet based on a few predictions he may have gotten right – when in reality he has written almost 1000 other predictions, most of them too vague or ambiguous to make sense. When we ignore this fact, the statement appears to be very convincing.

FALSE DILEMMA FALLACY An informal fallacy, also known as the False

Dilemma, False Dichotomy, or Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

It is committed when one presents two (often extreme) alternative states as the only possibilities, when it is not the case; it follows an “either you’re with me, or against me” format when there are really more alternatives.

It is fallacious because it fails to recognize that in certain situations, it is possible to have more than two outcomes – maybe states beyond the two or in-between the two, or even neither or both states.

There are exceptions: There may be cases when the number of

options really is limited. There are also the other valid uses of the

“or” connective. You can avoid this fallacy by seeing to it that

you are not overlooking alternatives to choices you have listed. Consider the following: Is it possible that there are other options

other than the two? Is there a category in between the two?

Can both my options be false or both my options be true?

Are they mutually exclusive of each other? Are they truly opposites of each other?

Example:

“There are some things money can’t buy. For everything else, there’s MASTERCARD.”

This slogan was part of a 1997 campaign for MasterCard. It follows in this statement that either: (1) things can’t be bought with money; or (2) things can be bought with MasterCard. Logically, it is fallacious because it presents the two options as being the only two options – when really there are more than the two.